MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594178890 · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/aa660e

Comparative study of separation between<i>ex vivo</i>prostatic malignant and benign tissue using electrical impedance spectroscopy and electrical impedance tomography

2017· article· en· W2594178890 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteVector InstituteCenters for Disease Control and PreventionDartmouth College
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyMargin (machine learning)Electrical impedanceBiomedical engineeringEx vivoFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceTomographyMedicineRadiologyIn vivoEngineeringMachine learningElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Currently no efficient and reliable technique exists to routinely assess surgical margins during a radical prostatectomy. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) has been reported as a potential technique to provide surgeons with real-time intraoperative margin assessment. In addition to providing a quantified measure of margin status, a co-registered electrical impedance tomography (EIT) image presented on a surgeon's workstation could add value to the margin assessment process. APPROACH: To investigate this, we conducted a comparative study between EIS and EIT to evaluate the potential these technologies might have for margin assessment. EIS and EIT data was acquired from ex vivo human prostates using a multi-electrode endoscopic impedance acquisition probe. MAIN RESULTS: EIS and EIT show good predictive performance with a 0.76 and 0.80 area-under-curve (AUC), respectively, when considering discrete frequencies only. A machine learning (ML) algorithm is implemented to combine features, which improves the AUCs of EIS and EIT to 0.84 and 0.85, respectively. Single-step EIT takes significantly less time to reconstruct than multi-step EIT, yet provides similarly accurate classification results, making the single-step approach a potential candidate for real-time margin assessment. While the ML-based approach clearly exhibits benefits as compared to the single feature assessment, the decision to use EIS versus EIT is unclear since each approach performs better for different subsets of tissue classifications. SIGNIFICANCE: The results presented in this paper corroborate our previous studies and present the strongest evidence yet that an intraoperative-capable impedance probe can be used to distinguish benign from malignant prostate tissues. An in vivo study with a large cohort will be necessary to definitively determine the preferred approach and to show the clinical effectiveness of using this technology for margin assessment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it